Jump to content

US Apache killing civvies on wikileaks.


View From The Top

Recommended Posts

Guest Dark Sotonic Mills
bloody hell

 

if that is not a reason to get this disgraceful labour lot out..I dont know what it

 

What the hell has US troops murdering civilians got to do with the Labour party J, I mean really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell has US troops murdering civilians got to do with the Labour party J, I mean really?

 

+1.

 

Disgraceful acts by US military, what it has to do with the party in power I don't know! I appreciate that people feel ashamed that Britain is associated in this 'war' (myself included) butthis act has nothing to do with Labour.

Edited by Thorpe-le-Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

War is hell, **** like this always has and always will happen in them. Including, regrettably, by UK personnel on occasions. Why so surprised? Just because for once you see it? Also, it's all very well being anti-war in the light of this, but where was everyone when we went in? It's always highly complex, and giving guns to largely ignorant kids is going to cause problems now, as it did in Bosnia, as it did in My Lai. as it did across Europe and the world in every other conflict. The bottom line is that the human race never learns a damn thing when the key lessons are there to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bloody hell

 

if that is not a reason to get this disgraceful labour lot out..I dont know what it

Do you honestly think that if we had had a Tory Government when Dubya decided to off Saddam, they would have done anything different ? You are a deluded fool if you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some were questioning the validity of the 'evidence' and supporting those protesting that the military action was unjustified and illegal under international law - what about you ?

 

Me too, as it happens. Many weren't, though. I disapproved of Saddam Hussein's human rights breaches and Kurdish murders, but found it convenient that the 'coalition' was happy to ignore despots in oil-scarce regions at the same time as invading Iraq with no link to Afghanistan or clear evidence. I find it troublingly clear that, no matter how much suffering and deaths under Saddam, the numbers do die since have been far in excess per year. How can one argue with that? The US have known that guerilla enemies in foreign lands cause real problems way before Vietnam - Mark Twain said the following in 1900:

 

"I wanted the American eagle to go screaming into the Pacific ...Why not spread its wings over the Philippines, I asked myself? ... I said to myself, Here are a people who have suffered for three centuries. We can make them as free as ourselves, give them a government and country of their own, put a miniature of the American Constitution afloat in the Pacific, start a brand new republic to take its place among the free nations of the world. It seemed to me a great task to which we had addressed ourselves. But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris , and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land."

 

He was talking about a war by the fledgling US against a Philippine nation rising up against colonialist annexation. The US eventually 'won' by use of great numbers and better technology (against an enemy they termed 'insurgents' - familiar, anyone?) but fared badly against a determined enemy force, who became increasingly effective upon utilising guerilla tactics. The US became more and more ruthless in response, murdering prisoners, killing civilians, etc, until the numbers told - and this is unlikely to be easy or acceptable in the more complex, far larger situation in Iraq or Afghanistan today.

 

Forget history at your peril.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely abhorent video, shocking. Most current & ex forces personnel here will clearly understand the term 'reaction to effective enemy fire'. I saw no enemy fire there whatsoever, unless of course the video was subject to some clever editing - although my gut feeling is that it was not.

 

I have served with US Forces on more than one occasion, and you do get the feeling that because of their 'civilian gun culture', and the right to bear arms, that they are very quick to use direct force. More worryingly though - when you listen to the commentary, they are very quick to absolve themselves of any blame and actually appear to enjoy the killing.

 

Videos like this will do coalition forces little favour as well - we are all tarred with the same brush, and when kids are being seriously injured it's hard to argue any sort of positive case. Sad, very very sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very very sad re the kids in the van, but why were they taken there when the people must have known

the helicopters were still there ? The helicopters couldn't see inside the van.

 

Also being shot at and attacked regularly by people dressed as civilians rather than in uniform must

make the armed forces trigger happy and adopt a shoot first ask questions after attitude ?

 

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the prologue sets up your thinking whilst watching and with that prejudgement makes it all the more unpleasant, men are kneeling at corners, walking down the road with items strapped over their arms and it must be difficult to determine, however, it seems the Americans are all to quick make that judgement call and sadly innocents are killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, all we've got to go on is the usual bull**** from wikileaks...

 

 

So you have the start, sets up a nice emotional feel throughout.. well done, nice ballanced reporting...

 

In the video the pilot is talking to ground troops, they mention that insurgents shooting at them had been taking shots at the brad (bradley)

 

THis Apache is obviously tasked over to prove air cover, spots a bunch of people, 2 of which actually have weapons, an AK and RPG...

 

 

You can see one guy with a RPG hiding round a corner...

 

they all huddle together...

 

and the Apache opens up...

 

the US forces ROE are different to ours... in 2007 the situation wa scompletly different to what it is now, it was well before the awakening councils...

 

I don't know how many of these videos you lot have watched, but the insurgents often film their attacks for propegamda.. that makes the camermen fair play to take out as well...

 

I can't see anything wrong with what happened in that video.... war is hell after all...

 

 

And the kids? Probably helping as well.. although like the others in the video, you'll never know..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, all we've got to go on is the usual bull**** from wikileaks...

 

 

So you have the start, sets up a nice emotional feel throughout.. well done, nice ballanced reporting...

 

In the video the pilot is talking to ground troops, they mention that insurgents shooting at them had been taking shots at the brad (bradley)

 

THis Apache is obviously tasked over to prove air cover, spots a bunch of people, 2 of which actually have weapons, an AK and RPG...

 

 

You can see one guy with a RPG hiding round a corner...

 

they all huddle together...

 

and the Apache opens up...

 

the US forces ROE are different to ours... in 2007 the situation wa scompletly different to what it is now, it was well before the awakening councils...

 

I don't know how many of these videos you lot have watched, but the insurgents often film their attacks for propegamda.. that makes the camermen fair play to take out as well...

 

I can't see anything wrong with what happened in that video.... war is hell after all...

 

 

And the kids? Probably helping as well.. although like the others in the video, you'll never know..

 

Sorry JD - but that is way out of context. The people that came under fire were posing no significant threat to anybody. To then say that non-combatants and children are somehow implicated is laughable. How on earth is a child going to help take on an Apache gunship?

 

I don't know about the credibility of the source, wikileaks, as up until I saw that video I had never heard of them - interesting though that the video is today featured as one of the Sky News headlines.

 

I am a staunch defender of our Forces and their actions - however, you cannot defend the indefencible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sickening. The enthusiasm is quite chilling.

tbh it's probably the best way to cope with a job that requires you to kill lots of people. if you took the time to feel compassion for everyone you had to kill it would probably be quite a hinderance.

 

and the point at which they thought one of them had an RPG, i findd quite understandable. Bloke crouching just round the corner with some heavy equipment protruding. i'd have ****ing **** myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt watch it through as i dont wish to see innocent kids killed. Of course us sitting in our basically safe surroundings behind computers can make these humnae judgements.

The group of men did look to be carrying weapons and I suspect even the mstupidest civilian would realise standing in groups, crouching behind buildings and armed is asking for trouble.

The helicopter guys had a responsibility to their comrades on the ground as well as the fear a RPG would be aimed in their direction any moment.

As for the kids, that is sick but how many have shot allied troops when they were off guard, it is dofferent society and different rules. I notice 2 woman were suicide bombers, what if that was a group of woman and were hiding explosives. would it be Ok to fire at them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same old "ride into town, shot it up, ride out again" cowboy mentality.

 

My uncle served in Italy with the 8th Army and he said they were more afraid of the American artillary than they were of the Italians.

 

I was in Seattle a few years ago when the Gulf War started. This guy heard my accent and came over for a chat. He was all over us Brits and hated the French so it was instant bonding. He had his young son with him and did nothing but talk about the war. His son then chipped up that they had been out buying ammo and described to me what the bullets could do to a man. I declined their kind offer to go out to their truck and look at their guns. The Dad told me as he walked way that if they invaded Seattle he would take a few with him!

 

Scary.....Not so much that he was arming up for an invasion so much, more that he actually thought it could happen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, all we've got to go on is the usual bull**** from wikileaks...

 

 

So you have the start, sets up a nice emotional feel throughout.. well done, nice ballanced reporting...

 

In the video the pilot is talking to ground troops, they mention that insurgents shooting at them had been taking shots at the brad (bradley)

 

THis Apache is obviously tasked over to prove air cover, spots a bunch of people, 2 of which actually have weapons, an AK and RPG...

 

 

You can see one guy with a RPG hiding round a corner...

they all huddle together...

 

and the Apache opens up...

 

the US forces ROE are different to ours... in 2007 the situation wa scompletly different to what it is now, it was well before the awakening councils...

 

I don't know how many of these videos you lot have watched, but the insurgents often film their attacks for propegamda.. that makes the camermen fair play to take out as well...

 

I can't see anything wrong with what happened in that video.... war is hell after all...

 

 

And the kids? Probably helping as well.. although like the others in the video, you'll never know..

 

 

 

Reuters reporter with a 35mm SLR with a zoom lens attached.

 

This footage is genuine and Reuters have been attempting to find out the truth for years and now they have.

 

The US military have battled to keep the footage hidden and do not deny it's genuine and that speaks volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

same old ******** being spouted...

 

People with no idea what ges on in a war zone spouting the same old rethoric.....

 

You can't get **** from some youtubed footage thats been edited to fook and taken utterly out of context....

 

Don't you ever wonder why practically none of these incidents ever result in prosecutions???

 

 

Because the vast majority are utterly without merit...

 

 

Oh and to the person sayong they were not any danger to the apache.. well duuuurrr.... it's there providing air support for the troops on the ground who AR being shot at...

 

 

Don't you just love arm chair activists, sat in fron of a pc, thousands upon thousands of miles away making snap judgements with a limited grasp of the facts....

 

 

keep it up guys, you're doing a stirling job....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

same old ******** being spouted...

 

People with no idea what ges on in a war zone spouting the same old rethoric.....

 

You can't get **** from some youtubed footage thats been edited to fook and taken utterly out of context....

 

Don't you ever wonder why practically none of these incidents ever result in prosecutions???

 

 

Because the vast majority are utterly without merit...

 

 

Oh and to the person sayong they were not any danger to the apache.. well duuuurrr.... it's there providing air support for the troops on the ground who AR being shot at...

 

 

Don't you just love arm chair activists, sat in fron of a pc, thousands upon thousands of miles away making snap judgements with a limited grasp of the facts....

 

 

keep it up guys, you're doing a stirling job....

 

Pots, kettles and black spring to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised this thread has made the impact it has. I've seen lots of videos like this before. Too many people join the army as they get a real thrill and kick from killing. I can't believe they would get the go ahead on this - just a few people on the ground. Each bullet they fired probably cost us £50,000! The American Army has a lot to answer for. I think we've got this kind of sh*t to deal with for many years to come too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

same old ******** being spouted...

 

People with no idea what ges on in a war zone spouting the same old rethoric.....

You can't get **** from some youtubed footage thats been edited to fook and taken utterly out of context....

 

Don't you ever wonder why practically none of these incidents ever result in prosecutions???

 

 

Because the vast majority are utterly without merit...

 

 

Oh and to the person sayong they were not any danger to the apache.. well duuuurrr.... it's there providing air support for the troops on the ground who AR being shot at...

 

Don't you just love arm chair activists, sat in fron of a pc, thousands upon thousands of miles away making snap judgements with a limited grasp of the facts....

 

 

keep it up guys, you're doing a stirling job....

 

Really? The Gulf War that I took part in must have been a dream and all those years spent in HM Forces must have been a drug induced hallucination.

 

The Apache was offering air support for an engagement but that isn't, nor ever has been an excuse for engaging unarmed civvies.

 

Now, tell us of your experience of combat?

 

Oh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

same old ******** being spouted...

 

People with no idea what ges on in a war zone spouting the same old rethoric.....

 

You can't get **** from some youtubed footage thats been edited to fook and taken utterly out of context....

 

Don't you ever wonder why practically none of these incidents ever result in prosecutions???

 

 

Because the vast majority are utterly without merit...

 

 

Oh and to the person sayong they were not any danger to the apache.. well duuuurrr.... it's there providing air support for the troops on the ground who AR being shot at...

 

 

Don't you just love arm chair activists, sat in fron of a pc, thousands upon thousands of miles away making snap judgements with a limited grasp of the facts....

 

 

keep it up guys, you're doing a stirling job....

 

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

Imo the sooner that the American military decreases it's presence in the Middle-East, the better. I know that it's not possible, as they're the glue holding things together really at the moment, but they're also the ones who seem to be causing a lot of the tensions out there with things such as this. You don't see many extremists burning Italian or British flags...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

same old ******** being spouted...

 

People with no idea what ges on in a war zone spouting the same old rethoric.....

 

You can't get **** from some youtubed footage thats been edited to fook and taken utterly out of context....

 

Don't you ever wonder why practically none of these incidents ever result in prosecutions???

 

 

Because the vast majority are utterly without merit...

 

 

Oh and to the person sayong they were not any danger to the apache.. well duuuurrr.... it's there providing air support for the troops on the ground who AR being shot at...

 

 

Don't you just love arm chair activists, sat in fron of a pc, thousands upon thousands of miles away making snap judgements with a limited grasp of the facts....

 

 

keep it up guys, you're doing a stirling job....

 

I think laughing because a car has driven over a dead person, shows that perhaps said person isn't mature enough to be in the Army, let alone to be firing from a helicopter into areas where there are civilians. Of course I'm not in the Army so I'm obviously totally wrong :rolleyes:

 

The way most people look at war is that we have morals, and they don't. They blood thirstily murder and kill just because that's what they've been instructed to do. In reality many people in the Army are just as bad and unfortunately it only takes one of those people to make the whole of the Army look bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

same old ******** being spouted...

 

People with no idea what ges on in a war zone spouting the same old rethoric.....You can't get **** from some youtubed footage thats been edited to fook and taken utterly out of context....

Don't you ever wonder why practically none of these incidents ever result in prosecutions???

Because the vast majority are utterly without merit...

Oh and to the person sayong they were not any danger to the apache.. well duuuurrr.... it's there providing air support for the troops on the ground who AR being shot at...

Don't you just love arm chair activists, sat in fron of a pc, thousands upon thousands of miles away making snap judgements with a limited grasp of the facts....

keep it up guys, you're doing a stirling job....

 

I think you're on the windup, there is no way you can come to that conclusion from that footage, i agree the soundtrack can be manipulated but the pictures tell a story of gung-ho, blood thirsty idiots with no control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're on the windup, there is no way you can come to that conclusion from that footage, i agree the soundtrack can be manipulated but the pictures tell a story of gung-ho, blood thirsty idiots with no control.

 

While i think this is abhorrent, there is something to be said about the pilots attitudes. Having spoken to a heli pilot previously, he commented that they are often strangely removed from all the actual carnage and the shocking visuals. Because everything is done from a distance, through a camera, it removes that awful part of war.

 

2nd world war bomber crew had similar issues. Deal death from a distance, and it can be made into something less than real.

 

The 1st half is understandable, to a degree, given the context, although i disagree with their method of identifying - it is awful, chilling and tragic, but it is a war zone and people do die (unfortunately mainly innocents), especially if standing around, in groups, in a active zone like that.

 

The 2nd half, with the van is dispicable, there is no reason for them to engage as there was no threat, and forces on the ground were en route.

 

All in all a very sad tale - i genuinely feel the pilots thought they were doing the correct thing, based on their rules of engagement - however, those rules could do with a rethink.

 

All imo, i'm not trying to enflame anyone, i just thought the point about the pilots was worth contributing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that the US HAS to fight wars, its infrastructure is set up that way. The Lockheed Martins etc, produce fighter planes helicopters etc and munitions and these have to get used. Why does the US fight so many wars? Vietnam, Korea, etc.

These instances are always going to occur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that the US HAS to fight wars, its infrastructure is set up that way. The Lockheed Martins etc, produce fighter planes helicopters etc and munitions and these have to get used. Why does the US fight so many wars? Vietnam, Korea, etc.

These instances are always going to occur

 

Point very well made. Without a war going on the US would probably be even worst off due to redundancies etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dark Sotonic Mills
I don't see how anyone can watch that and still vote Labour.

 

It's a matter of principle, no government should be allowed to lie to take us into war and still remain in power. What sort of precedent does it set if they are voted in again?

 

No government in history has ever told the real truth about going to war. There are always ulterior motives, even with the Falklands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same old "ride into town, shot it up, ride out again" cowboy mentality.

 

My uncle served in Italy with the 8th Army and he said they were more afraid of the American artillary than they were of the Italians.

 

I was in Seattle a few years ago when the Gulf War started. This guy heard my accent and came over for a chat. He was all over us Brits and hated the French so it was instant bonding. He had his young son with him and did nothing but talk about the war. His son then chipped up that they had been out buying ammo and described to me what the bullets could do to a man. I declined their kind offer to go out to their truck and look at their guns. The Dad told me as he walked way that if they invaded Seattle he would take a few with him!

 

Scary.....Not so much that he was arming up for an invasion so much, more that he actually thought it could happen!

 

A family member trained US special forces in various Far East war theatres, he always makes us laugh with tales of them pouring a gallon of aftershave on themselves and lighting a large cuban cigar whilst on patrol he said the gooks could smell them before they ever saw them.LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone can watch that and still vote Labour.

 

It's a matter of principle, no government should be allowed to lie to take us into war and still remain in power. What sort of precedent does it set if they are voted in again?

 

You think things would change if we got someone else in? It wouldn't. I fully understand what you're saying, but it makes f*ck all difference who you vote for IMO when war comes into it. Obama is the only person who can change the way we engage in wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone can watch that and still vote Labour.

 

It's a matter of principle, no government should be allowed to lie to take us into war and still remain in power. What sort of precedent does it set if they are voted in again?

 

Why the hell would anyone think the tories wouldn't have done things exactly the same? Idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the hell would anyone think the tories wouldn't have done things exactly the same? Idiot.

 

That's not important, WHOEVER is in government needs to know that you cannot lie to go to war and get away with it.

 

It sets a dangerous precedent if your leaders think they can lie and spin their way to murdering thousands of people and not face any comeback. Otherwise what is the point in democracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think that lots goes on in the corridors of power that make it hard to judge things. As far as I recall it, there was a broad cross party agreement in the end. Plus, being in opposition means you don't get leant on by 'comrades' etc. Who knows.. that's all I'm saying, and it's very easy to now get at the government. Don't get me wrong, I'm far from happy with much that this supposedly labour party has done - but holding them directly accountable for this sort of thing is stupid. Any war has innocent casualties, you know this very well. OK, governments have blood on their hands for sending soldiers knowing this, too. There's only so much you can stop from happening in combat, and the modern media means things will get out. Yet actually, if the whole population had said "No" then we wouldn't have gone. That is a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not important, WHOEVER is in government needs to know that you cannot lie to go to war and get away with it.

 

It sets a dangerous precedent if your leaders think they can lie and spin their way to murdering thousands of people and get away with it. Otherwise what hat is the point in democracy?

 

My point is that any government could have been in the same position. I'm not defending it. Yet it seems many people were in favour at the start, and democracy isn't about doing the right thing, in its pure form. It's about doing what most of the people want. Even if we say it's less pure, and the government should have done the best thing for this country, we really don't know what they did it for. That's irrefutable. I don't think they spent millions simply to kill innocents, but sure, they must - we must - be accountable for the fact that it happened, because it always does. I also wouldn't say it was a precedent. There've been hundreds, thousands before. It's what governments do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that any government could have been in the same position. I'm not defending it. Yet it seems many people were in favour at the start, and democracy isn't about doing the right thing, in its pure form. It's about doing what most of the people want. Even if we say it's less pure, and the government should have done the best thing for this country, we really don't know what they did it for. That's irrefutable. I don't think they spent millions simply to kill innocents, but sure, they must - we must - be accountable for the fact that it happened, because it always does. I also wouldn't say it was a precedent. There've been hundreds, thousands before. It's what governments do.

 

That's my point, most people DIDN'T want to go to war.

 

When has a British government ever previously got a PR expert to spin a dossier in order to go to war for reason that turned out to be completely false?

 

I don't doubt that the Torys would have done the same thing, but they need to know that when they get in power and a similar situation arises, taking the country to war on a lie will end their careers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't, though. That's the problem. Not unless people truly hold them accountable, but actually, we're all here rather than marching in the streets. Voting another party in - without saying 'this is why' - will not change the culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})